Editing Remote viewing (section)

===PEAR's Remote Perception program===

Beginning in the late 1970s, the [[Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab]] (PEAR) carried out extensive research on remote viewing. By 1989, it had conducted 336 formal trials, reporting a composite [[z-score]] of 6.355, with a corresponding [[p-value]] of {{val|1.04e-10}}.<ref name=hansen>{{cite journal |last1=Hansen |first1=George P. |last2=Utts |first2=Jessica |last3=Markwick |first3=Betty |date=June 1992 |title=Critique of the PEAR remote-viewing experiments |url=http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/PEARCritique.pdf |journal=Journal of Parapsychology |volume=56}}</ref>  In a 1992 critique of these results, Hansen, Utts and Markwick concluded "The PEAR remote-viewing experiments depart from commonly accepted criteria for formal research in science. In fact, they are undoubtedly some of the poorest quality ESP experiments published in many years."<ref name=hansen/>  The lab responded that "none of the stated complaints compromises the PEAR experimental protocols or analytical methods" and reaffirmed their results.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Dobyns |first1=Y.H. |last2=Dunne |first2=B.J. |last3=Jahn |first3=R.G. |last4=Nelson |first4=R.D. |date=June 1992 |title=Response to Hansen, Utts, and Markwick |url=http://icrl.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/1992-response-hansen-utts-markwick.pdf |journal=Journal of Parapsychology |volume=56}}</ref>

Following Utts' emphasis on replication and Hyman's challenge on interlaboratory consistency in the AIR report, PEAR conducted several hundred trials to see if they could replicate the [[Science Applications International Corporation|SAIC]] and SRI experiments. They created an analytical judgment methodology to replace the human judging process criticized in past experiments, and they released a report in 1996. They felt the results of the experiments were consistent with the SRI experiments.<ref>{{cite journal |url= http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_10_1_nelson.pdf |journal= [[Journal of Scientific Exploration]] |publisher= [[Society for Scientific Exploration]] |volume= 10 |issue= 1 |pages= 109–110 |year= 1996 |title= Precognitive remote perception: Replication of remote viewing |first1= RD |last1= Nelson |first2= BJ |last2= Dunne |first3= YH |last3= Dobyns |first4= RG |last4= Jahn |access-date= 2008-06-02 |url-status= dead |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20100107161704/http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_10_1_nelson.pdf |archive-date= 2010-01-07 }}</ref>{{unreliable source?|date=February 2020}} However, statistical flaws have been proposed by others in the parapsychological community and within the general scientific community.<ref name="Jeffers2006">{{cite journal |url= http://www.csicop.org/si/show/pear_proposition_fact_or_fallacy/ |title= The PEAR proposition: Fact or fallacy? |publisher= [[Committee for Skeptical Inquiry]] |journal= [[Skeptical Inquirer]] |first= Stanley |last= Jeffers |date= May–June 2006 |access-date= 2014-01-24 |volume= 30 |issue= 3 |archive-date= 2014-02-01 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20140201122738/http://www.csicop.org/si/show/pear_proposition_fact_or_fallacy/ |url-status= dead }}</ref>